User talk:Apokryltaros

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

/User talk:Apokryltaros Archive 1 /User talk:Apokryltaros Archive 2

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Boars[edit]

Male bears are called "boars". Look here http://www.ask.com/pets-animals/male-bear-called-3da11fdefbb04141. Cheers. Dger (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) So a male bear can be called a boar-bear? And if it's cold, wet, and hungry, it would be a poor boar-bear? Corinne (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, yes, and only if it it's being offered a fried oyster sandwich on sourdough.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
(I just saw this.) Is that a "poor-boy"? So if the cold, wet boar-bear were eating one of those, would he be a poor boar-bear eating a poor-boy? Corinne (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC) Or is it a "po-boy"? Corinne (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
He'd be a wet bear eating a wet sandwich.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Face-grin.svg Corinne (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Samotherium major[edit]

Hello, would you be able to make another picture of Samotherium major in light of this new article reconstructing its neck posture? I'm not sure if your current image is accurate. LittleJerry (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@LittleJerry:, so, have the neck held a little more horizonal like an okapi's, and not as vertically as a giraffe's?--Mr Fink (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, the article states that Samotherium was an important transition to a giraffe-like neck. Are you sure the length is right? LittleJerry (talk) 23:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
It's probably not the correct length, either. I'll get to work making adjustments tonight.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello again, do you think it would better to have Samotherium compared to the giraffe and okapi in the picture? LittleJerry (talk) 23:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I'll get to work on that, too, then.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Image coming along fine? LittleJerry (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
{ping|LittleJerry}} Now that I've remembered to scan it, what do you think?--Mr Fink (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Where is it? LittleJerry (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
@LittleJerry: I knew I was forgetting something [1]: Also, S. major is in the middle, Okapi at the bottom, and Giraffe, well...--Mr Fink (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Looks great! LittleJerry (talk) 02:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
I'll get to work inking it, then.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Wait. Why doesn't Samotherium have legs? LittleJerry (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
It does have legs, it's just hard to see at this stage as it's behind the Okapi.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Is the image finished? LittleJerry (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I'll scan it in later today.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Ready? LittleJerry (talk) 02:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
@LittleJerry: Yes, yes it is. The official artsy reason why it's uncolored is because "the markings would distract from the comparison." The unofficial reason why it's uncolored is because life-events have left me pressed for time, and a little shaky in the hand.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! LittleJerry (talk) 13:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Grammatical number and taxa[edit]

Hi, my comment relates to this edit. At WP:PLANTS, we've discussed the grammatical number to be used with taxon names, but I can't find a discussion related to animals. The following points can easily be sourced:

  • The names of taxa above genus, such as families or superfamilies, are plural in Latin.
  • Taxon names are treated as proper names when writing in English.
  • In English, plural proper names require a determiner (e.g. "the"), singular proper names don't take one (hence the difference between "the Rockies" and "Etna").

The contentious issue is whether the Latin number has to be used in English. There are many sources who argue that it does; see as just one example Encyclopedia of Entomology, p. 3302. Personally, I disagree; we aren't writing Latin but English, and can choose to treat plural Latin words as collective nouns.

However, there are advantages to the plural form in some cases. Thus I much prefer the opening "The Araneoidea or araneoids are a taxon of araneomorph spiders ..." to "Araneoidea is a taxon of araneomorph spiders ...", since the former allows "araneoids" (used later in the article) to be introduced early on as a synonym. We shouldn't assume that all readers know that "-oids" is a standard transformation of "-oidea". Regardless of my view, the use of the plural can't be said to be wrong, and should not be changed unnecessarily. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Alright.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry[edit]

I was putting Thunderclap's species (Nyctosaurus) on the cast list (it's mentioned in the plot that's on the article as well). So yeah, sorry about that. Let's keep it the way it is. Anyways I love your art, I also have since become a more mature person that what I did when I was on here arguing with you about the Australovenator-Dromaeosaurus (I highly agree with you now, although the BBC site claims that the Polar Allosaur was indeed the former, but it could likely be wrong). Anyways have a good December. 73.240.105.185 (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words and understanding: it's important that we try to avoid fan-identification, as that is WP:Original Research.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Miniopterus aelleni[edit]

Hello, Apokryltaros -- I saw a number of red links in the section Miniopterus aelleni#Taxonomy. I thought you might know of articles or sections of articles to which these terms could be linked. Corinne (talk) 03:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I opted to unlink "divergence" and replace it with "sequence divergence," the others are of topics that have yet to be made into articles yet (Faune being a Madagascar-themed biology science journal, and the other two being scientists).--Mr Fink (talk) 03:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
O.K. Thanks! Corinne (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

It's that time of year....[edit]

Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic)
Time To Spread Some Happy Holiday Cheer!!
I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season.

What's especially nice about the digitized version is that it doesn't need water,

and it won't catch fire.
Wishing you a joyous holiday season...
...and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉

Atsme📞📧 15:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Pure pun-ishment. [2]
I wonder if there are red and green Christmas tree worms.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

About the piscivore page[edit]

Hello Mr. Apokryltaros; happy new year and Christmas !

I see the spinosauroids on the piscivore page; but The spinosauroids weren't obligate piscivores; as the iguanadon remains in a Baryonyx and a teeth belonged to a spinosauroid were found in the fossil records; so the spinosauroid diet is very similar to the alligator and seal you mentioned\write; may I delete the Baryonyx an Spinosaurus from the piscivores category but write them on the extinct piscivores as; spinosauroids were known to consume fish but from the fossil records its estimated that their diet consist any prey aviable or similar to alligators ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dredann (talkcontribs) 15:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Simply because Baryonyx and Spinosaurus were not obligate piscivores does not mean we should remove them from the list of prehistoric and extinct piscivores, especially since there is undeniable evidence of them eating fish in the first place. [3]--Mr Fink (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


I didn't mean that; I meant I would write and note they had fish on their diet but that does not consist their almost entire diet like gharials. I meant some example like this : Some of the extinct animals, such as the spinosauroids, are not completely piscivorous, often preying on aquatic invertebrates or land animals in addition to fish.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3665537/ http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065295 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dredann (talkcontribs) 20:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The rule about posting only obligate piscivores applies primarily to extant piscivores, so that that list does not become a long and cluttered mess mentioning every single living animal that won't pass up a fish dinner. Again, simply because the spinosaurids were not obligate piscivores does not mean they don't deserve to be on the list of prehistoric piscivores, especially since there is notable evidence of their piscivorous habits in the first place.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you should bring this up at the talk page.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay than; I continue at that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dredann (talkcontribs) 11:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

About that edit[edit]

Okay so I said that the sauropod in the movie "One Million Years B.C." was a Brontosaurus, so I know it got reverted, but the movie's trailer and a book about Ray Harryhausen confirms that it's a Brontosaurus, not an Apatosaurus (although Brontosaurus was a synonym of Apatosaurus at the time). Also the article for the original film the movie was based off of (I mean the 1940 film with Lon Chaney Jr.) claims that the rams in the movie were muskoxen. Is there a source for that (the movie never states that they are muskox and they appear to be sheep, not bovines)? --73.240.105.185 (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide a source that says this? If "yes," then please source it. If "no," then please stop making unsourced edits or risk the consequences.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
As far as Ray was concerned, it was a 'Brontosaurus' - that's how he referred to it. The recent scientific change occurred either after or right before his death. Just as the creature in 'Gwangi' is an allosaurus, according to Ray - not a tyrannosaur. This was his concept of these dinosaurs. This has been written up in many interviews. Several paleontologists have tried to re-write history as far as Harryhausen is concerned - but they didn't even know the man. I had the pleasure of sitting down with Ray along with my friend Jim Rodkey at a convention and we talked to him for a good 30 minutes. I would suggest such tomes as issues of Starlog, etc., to find a Reliable Source to confirm the Brontosaurus information. 98.67.182.239 (talk) 03:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
For now though, we're going with the official facebook posting.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Alright[edit]

I found a source, so would I just have to put it in the summary or show it to you first? Also would someone put it in the references (like I don't think a regular user can, but an admin I believe can)? Thanks for the help. But is there a source that says that the ram-like animals in "One Million B.C." (1940) says that they are muskoxen (that bugs me still)? --73.240.105.185 (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Why not show it on Talk:One Million Years B.C., first, so everyone can check and make sure, first?--Mr Fink (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! --73.240.105.185 (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Carcinology[edit]

Best wishes for a Happy, Healthy 2016! I've just learned a few new words that I had never heard before, including malacology, carcinology, and cirripedology. Corinne (talk) 03:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Mazel tov, and conchology to you and yours.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Redlichiidae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Xela (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Mesozoic[edit]

I was just looking at the article on the Mesozoic era, and I was surprised to see an image with this caption: "Inaccurately portrayed Stegosaurus". What is the point or the educational benefit of including an image that inaccurately portrays an ancient reptile? Are there any images of Stegosaurus that more accurately illustrate the animal? Corinne (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree we should replace it with more accurate pictures, and leave the archaic reconstructions to the animal's "In Popular Culture" section.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh, O.K. Good. Corinne (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Mammutidae[edit]

Apokryltaros, what's the difference between a mammoth and a mastondon? Is Mammutidae the main article about mastondons? If so, isn't it a little skimpy? Corinne (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Mammoths are any true elephant species of the genus Mammuthus, whereas mastodons are any proboscidean of the family Mammutidae, especially those of the genus Mammut.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Piscivore Page[edit]

Hello Mr.Apokryltaros; I don understand why you rechange the piscivore page but I fixed my changes with sources this time. Please don't rechange the page. There are direct evidence that proves Baryonyx wasn't an obligate piscivore and spinosaurus obligate aquaticness is really a debated subject especially after the sigilmassasaurus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dredann (talkcontribs) 17:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Except that the way you word the mentioning that Baryonyx and Spinosaurus were not obligate piscivores introduces WP:Weasel words that make it confusing to the reader.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
The sources I linked were trustable; not false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dredann (talkcontribs) 22:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
The sources you used were blogs and children's books. It would help if you used science journals as sources. That, and I never said your sources were false.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Its true. But may I also add legitimate scientific sources?

http://blog.everythingdinosaur.co.uk/blog/_archives/2008/05/31/the-thumb-claw-of-baryonyx.html my.abdodigital.com › abdodig › download https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=7t9M5TsmjOUC&pg=PA214&lpg=PA214&dq=baryonyx+iguanodon+remains&source=bl&ots=0GGnTh2WDa&sig=STauGD_uL_280MYhjvxB7Gpcwpc&hl=tr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-8_TJ-7HKAhUFlSwKHXrbCcw4ChDoAQgjMAY#v=onepage&q=baryonyx%20iguanodon%20remains&f=false

-Dredann

You don't understand: I keep reverting what you've posted on Piscivore because you either try to remove mention of Baryonyx and Spinosaurus, or try to create unreasonable doubt on the piscivorous habits of those two dinosaurs, even though both are considered extremely notable, if not the two most famous extinct piscivores. Secondly, this first source here is not a good source to begin with, and this book you're mentioning does not discuss anything about Baryonyx preying on Iguanodon. Please understand that the fact that Baryonx preyed on Iguanodon belongs in Baryonyx's page, and not Piscivore, especially since there is undeniable evidence that Baryonyx ate fish, and that that section of Piscivore is about fossil animals confirmed to have eaten fish.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Sonoluminescence[edit]

Just checking to be sure this edit to Sonoluminescence is correct. Corinne (talk) 04:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Mantis shrimp belong to an entirely different order, would be akin to comparing a mantis and a mantidfly--Mr Fink (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh. Thanks. (Did you see all the red links in Mantidfly?) Corinne (talk) 04:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Chinese food therapy may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ''Chinese system of Food Cures'' (1989), Pelanduk Publications Malaysia Sdn Bhd, ISBN 9789679782530)
  • Dietetics in Traditional Chinese Medicine'' (2008), [[Thieme Medical Publishers]], ISBN 3131309628)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Cyprinidae[edit]

I don't know why, but I've been reading articles on fish. In Cyprinidae, in the section Cyprinidae#Biology and ecology, second paragraph, is this sentence:

  • This construction is also used to observe motion of the gas bladder due to atmospheric conditions or depth changes.

I'm assuming "this construction" is the Weberian organ mentioned in the previous sentence, but it is not clear to me who uses the Weberian organ to observe motion of the gas bladder. Is this referring to scientists who use part of a fish to observe motion in another part of the fish? It sounds a little strange (and unclear) to me.

I was also looking at the captions to the images. In the section Cyprinidae#Subfamilies and genera, the first image has this caption:

  • (Acheilognathus longipinnis: Acheilognathinae)

I'm just wondering if the entire caption should be in parentheses. Corinne (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I opted to rewrite it to be more specific, as I figure it's better to be more specific and wordy, than to be vague and poetic. As for the captions, I've systematically removed all of the parentheses, as they appear to be inconsistently applied.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Great! Thanks! I was just looking at the article on Physostome (linked from Cyprinidae), and I made a few minor copy-edits. I was thinking that there must be more material that could be added to this article, including some diagrams. I just thought I'd mention it just in case you ever have nothing to do and want a project. Corinne (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Warning a user a second time about the same edit[edit]

Hello! I noticed that you warned a user (diff) because of an edit that I already warned him/her about (diff) a few messages earlier. I don't think it's necessary to warn the user a second time about the same edit, so perhaps you might want to revert your own warning? --Dodi 8238 (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Sea Monsters[edit]

I just happened to see this at User talk:Casliber#Wikiproject Sea Monsters resturns [sic]. There are two statements in Spanish, followed by a translation of the second statement. There is a link in the first statement. It links to a new WikiProject on Sea Monsters. I thought if you hadn't heard about this, you might find it interesting. I haven't yet figured out if this is about real sea monsters, mythical sea monsters, or both.  – Corinne (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing it to my attention.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
That seems a bit problematic, the old version was redirected since it was redundant (and inactive), and the name is very ambiguous, and so is the scope. I think it should stay a redirect to the palaeontology project. FunkMonk (talk) 01:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Doubutsu Sentai Zyuohger[edit]

I just wanted to say that I made this edit because those Japanese terms are over on the character list now. As you can see, someone else edit warred with me over them without explaining why and Boomer Vial says I should talk with you about it because you put it in after I took it out in my rewrite.--2601:140:8200:DE:CC43:A3F3:6D4A:5BDC (talk) 05:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I put the Japanese terms back into that section because there is no guarantee that a reader will go over to the other page to see the terms. I would have re-put them back in, but I'm too tired to editwar tonight (and am trying to wean myself off of leaping into yet another editwar).--Mr Fink (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
That makes some sense. How about just removing the Japanese for "Blood Game" seeing as it's just the English phrase "Blood Game" in katakana?--2601:140:8200:DE:CC43:A3F3:6D4A:5BDC (talk) 05:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
That sounds fair enough.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Águas de São Pedro[edit]

Hello, Apokryltaros -- I'm almost finished copy-editing Águas de São Pedro. In the second paragraph in Águas de São Pedro#Geomorphology and hydrology, it says, "the Triassic and Eo-Cretaceous ages". I searched for an article that would explain "Eo-Cretaceous" and couldn't find one. First, is the term correct, and, if so, is there some article to which I can link it?  – Corinne (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, the first and third paragraphs mention a "Peripheral Depression", but the term is not linked. The article Depression (geology) seems like a quasi-disambiguation page. Can you suggest an article to which I can link this phrase?  – Corinne (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, in the third paragraph it mentions a "Medium Tietê Zone". Should that be linked to something?

Finally, in the third paragraph I added two conversion templates. Can you tell me whether either the square kilometres (in the case of the second one) or the square miles should be rounded off or just left like that?  – Corinne (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

A) I assume(d) that "Eo-Cretaceous" referred to "Early Cretaceous," so I amended it as appropriately. B) From what I can tell, a "peripheral depression" is a series of depressions that border an uplifted area. I looked through the depression disambiguation page, and could not find an article that describes such a formation. C) Perhaps you could use this template "{{Convert|1.3|km|feet}}" here, and round to the nearest one's place?--Mr Fink (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Apokryltaros. The last one was "D". You skipped (or perhaps deliberately ignored) "C", but that's O.K. I know how to change the number of decimal points and rounding in conversion templates. You add a -1, 0, 1, 2, etc. after a pipe before the last pair of curly brackets. See Template:Convert, the Rounding section. Also, Checkingfax wrote up a nice set of examples at... Checkingfax, where is that example list that shows the various combinations of conversion templates and the corresponding results? Apokryltaros, I was just wondering how detailed the square km and sq mi numbers should be.  – Corinne (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh, the Tiete Zone. I'm not sure what it is.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Corinne. Not sure about the example list. Can you remind me a bit more?
As for decimal points the template will assume you want the same output as the input. You only have to force it if you want something different. Like in this case: {{convert|12568.72|km2|sqmi|0}} the convert template would normally show the results to 2 decimal places, but by adding the 0 it will show none. If you wanted 1 decimal place instead of 2 you would do: {{convert|12568.72|km2|sqmi|-1}} (i.e.- 2-1=1). If the input was 12568.723 and you wanted 1 decimal place you would do -2 (i.e.- 3-2=1). Personally, I let the output precision meet the input precision. In this example I would leave the 0 out. I am by no means an expert on this yet, so correct me if I my interpretation of the template output is wrong. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Trapdoor spider[edit]

Yes, your edit to Trapdoor spider was quite correct. It seems to me that "trapdoor spider" isn't sufficiently precise to serve as an article title. I wonder about moving it to the scientific name, Ctenizidae. Any views? Peter coxhead (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it would be better to move it to "Ctenizidae," then make "trapdoor spider" its own article, what with that term covering several spiders of several families.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it may be that something like Banana spider, perhaps a little expanded, is the best solution. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Sounds like a good plan.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Opabinia ‎[edit]

See my comment on the talk page - can you make an improvement/clarify the text? Jackiespeel (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Edestus[edit]

I was just looking at the pictures on your user page, and I was intrigued by the two images of Edestus. When I looked at the photo of the fossil, I couldn't tell which end was the head and which end was the tail, or end. I saw what looked like a set of teeth to the left, and what vaguely looks like a mouth to the right. Or is this not even a complete skeleton? If not, what is it?  – Corinne (talk) 01:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Almost all fossils of Edestus are of its teeth: because it is a cartilaginous fish, only the teeth were more or less guaranteed to survive, while the rest of the body disintegrated due to decay. A partial skull has been found to hint/show researchers how the teeth were articulated in life (like blades of a pinking shear).--Mr Fink (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Is that fossil just part of a jaw, then, with a few teeth toward the left end?  – Corinne (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, as the animal aged, the smaller/older teeth were pushed forward towards the tips of the jaws.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I just looked at the image again and realized that that is just one tooth, not a lot of small teeth.  – Corinne (talk) 02:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, that's one tooth/unit.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Stomata types[edit]

Hi Mr. A! I have a need to extend the stomata article with information about types, as these are regularly mentioned in plant descriptions. But rather than words only, it would be much better to have sketchy drawings to explain. Could I ask you to make drawings of these types. Some examples may be found in the following websites and articles:1 2 3 4 Thank you in advance for considering. Kind regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do/draw.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Deer[edit]

Hi! I plan to rewrite this article carefully and take this to GA status, an article as important as deserves that at the least. How do you like this proposal? And thanks for all your amazing contributions to Wikipedia! Sainsf <^>Feel at home 16:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a fabulous plan, Monsieur. Where do we start, and what would you have me contribute, @Sainsf:?--Mr Fink (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Sounds like a great collaboration is on the way! I don't know how you contribute, please let me know how you would like to help. I am mainly a content developer, and will try to rewrite the whole article in the coming days. Chiswick Chap may like to help us with the "Interaction with humans" part, he is amazing at that and I hopeless... Sainsf <^>Feel at home 17:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
If worse comes to worst, I can always contribute some prehistoric deer reconstructions.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I will be working on the Evolution section tomorrow, will see what we can use. Come on, you will be valuable! Sainsf <^>Feel at home 18:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
salute--Mr Fink (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Treponema spirochetes[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Treponema spirochetes has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. CatPath (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Precious[edit]

decorating the extinct

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

Thank you for enlivening the long extinct with impressive illustrations and your contributions to Wikipedia. This had been long overdue, but has only become better deserved, for you are an awesome Wikipedian!

Sainsf (talk · contribs) 08:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Cameroceras extinction datum[edit]

Greetings!

I write this message in regard to the extinction datum on the Cameroceras page. Namely, both the first and (especially) second source give an incorrect stratigraphic range. A paper by the U.S. geological survey, "Middle and Upper Ordovician nautiloid cephalopods of the Cincinnati Arch region of Kentucky, Indiana, and Ohio"(Frey,1995), which is also cited as a source on the article, mentions several times the (quite common) occurrence of Cameroceras specimens in rocks as recent as the Richmondian age, and if I recall correctly, also mentions their existence near the O-S boundary, possibly even beyond the boundary. Therefore, I suggest moving the latest definite appearance date to the Hirnantian, 443 million years ago. Random995 (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Random995 (talkcontribs) 23:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Random995:Then it would be necessary for us to provide this source for this change in order to update the information.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
@Apokryltaros:Ah, I see the problem now. Although the source I mentioned is already in the article's references, I didn't actually cite it directly when stating the stratigraphic range. I'll remedy that.
@Apokryltaros:I've just changed the page and added the required citations. Is everything in place now?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Randon995 (talkcontribs)
Yes, yes it is now, thank you very much.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey[edit]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

  • Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

Hello, I created these two items you can take a look? Thank you. I do not speak English: Geochelone burchardi and Geochelone vulcanica.--CanaryIslands (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@CanaryIslands:- Thank you for letting me know about those two articles. You did an excellent job translating both articles, I adjusted the wording to make them read more fluently in English.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help.--CanaryIslands (talk) 07:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you![edit]

Erdbeerteller01.jpg Because giving someone a bowl of strawaggregateaccessoryfruits would just be silly! JohannSnow (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I wish that was a real bowl of strawberries: chipmunks keep eating mine.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Carnassial[edit]

I was just looking at the article on Carnassial teeth, and I looked at the two videos in the section Carnassial#Carnassial dentition. I was puzzled as to why the caption said it was of an otter while the image file says "weasel".  – Corinne (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

It looked like a weasel skull, so I adjusted it accordingly.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Great! Thanks. I forgot to say it was the image on the left, but you found it.  – Corinne (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Good Dinosaur talk page[edit]

If you have a chance, please check out the discussion I started on The Good Dinosaur talk page and offer your thoughts. Thanks! Wikicontributor12 (talk) 03:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Graphic Designer Barnstar Hires.png The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
Your dinosaurs are incredible. Iazyges (talk) 04:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


Thank you!

A second opinion[edit]

Please take a look at Talk:List of dragons in film and television and tell me what you think about the points I made. Deltasim (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Can we please also have your thoughts on the listing of multiple dragons from series on the talk page as well? Thanks for the edit thanks!ShadowDragon343 (talk) 11:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Bowhead whale[edit]

Do you feel like responding to this edit summary at Bowhead whale?  – Corinne (talk) 04:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Just another whining wannabe scholar puffing his chest by pointing some perceived flaw without actually doing something constructive about it.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)